CEL Court Claim, but I was out of the country when the car was parked'

Redx

I read it here in post #4

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5664484

I did not mean to infer that they were all members of pepipoo, just that GAN posted his claim on pepipoo (it may well be that none of them were actual pepipoo members)

but either way, CEL dont seem to follow through on well defended court claims

Coupon-mad

Yes I read it too, and Gan's a great contributor on pepipoo, no question he's a main contributor there and bloody good. But he hasn't written 120 defences for forum members...not that it matters!

Main point is agreed: he has found, and we have found, that CEL don't contest a decent defence.

s1290

In the County Court Business Centre
Between:
Civil Enforcement Limited
V
DEFENDANT

I, The DEFENDANT deny I am liable to the Claimant for the entirety of the claim for each of the following reasons:

1. The Claim Form issued on the 09 Jun 2017 by Civil Enforcement Limited was not correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person but signed by “Civil Enforcement Limited” (Claimants legal representative).


2. This Claimant has not complied with the pre-court protocol. And as an example as to why this prevents a full defence being filed at this time, a parking charge can be for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge. All these are treated differently in law and require a different defence. The wording of any contract will naturally be a key element in this matter, and a copy of the alleged contract has never been provided to the Defendant.

(a) There was no compliant ‘Letter before County Court Claim’, under the Practice Direction.

(b) This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information for the defendant.

(c) The Schedule of information is sparse of detailed information.

(d) The Claim Form Particulars were extremely sparse and divulged no cause of action nor sufficient detail. The Defendant has no idea what the claim is about - why the charge arose, what the alleged contract was; nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information. The Claim Form Particulars did not contain any evidence of contravention or photographs.

e) The Defence therefore asks the Court to strike out the claim as having no reasonable prospect of success as currently drafted.

f) Alternatively, the Defendant asks that the Claimant is required to file Particulars which comply with Practice Directions and include at least the following information;

I. Whether the matter is being brought for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge, and an explanation as to the exact nature of the suspected charge:

ii. A copy of any contract it is alleged was in place (e.g. copies of signage)

iii. How any contract was concluded (if by performance, then copies of signage maps in place at the time)

iv. Whether keeper liability is being claimed and if so copies of any Notice to Driver / Notice to Keeper.

v. Whether the Claimant is acting as Agent or Principal, together with a list of documents they will rely on in this matter

vi. If charges over and above the initial charge are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed

vii. If Interest charges are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed

g) Once these Particulars have been filed, the Defendant asks for reasonable time to file another defence.

3. The Claimant failed to meet the Notice to Keeper obligations of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Absent such a notice served within 14 days of the parking event and with fully compliant statutory wording, this Claimant is unable to hold me liable under the strict ‘keeper liability’ provisions outlined below.

a) Schedule 4 also states that the only sum a keeper can be pursued for (if Schedule 4 is fully complied with, which it was not, and if there was a 'relevant obligation' and relevant contract' fairly and adequately communicated, which there was not) is the sum on the Notice to Keeper. They cannot pluck another sum from thin air and bolt that on as well when neither the signs, nor the NTK, nor the permit information mentioned a possible £325.33 for outstanding debt and damages.
a).The notice to keeper that CEL issues are not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, sch 4 and therefore there is no keeper liability. Only the driver is liable.

b). I was not the driver for the alleged claim. I could not be as I was out of the country at the time. I will provide proof of this in my evidence and witness statement.

C) It is merely impossible to enter into such terms and the contractual agreement as suggested by the claimant of entering land without any such presence.

d). There is therefore no cause of action against me.

4. The Claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. It is believed that the employee who drew up the paperwork is remunerated and the particulars of claim are templates, so it is simply not credible that £50 'legal representative’s (or even admin) costs' were incurred as is suggested these drafts are being sent out to claim by ‘chance’ and are generic and not specific.

5. This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free. None of this applies in this material case.

6. In the absence of any proof of adequate signage that contractually bound the Defendant then there can have been no contract and the Claimant has no case.
a) The Claimant is put to strict proof that at the time of the alleged event they had both advertisement consent and the permission from the site owner to display the signs.
b) In the absence of strict proof I submit that the Claimant was committing an offence by displaying their signs and therefore no contract could have been entered into between the driver and the Claimant.
c) Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
(d) Sporadic and illegible (charge not prominent nor large lettering) of site/entrance signage - breach of the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice and no contract formed to pay any clearly stated sum.
(e) Non-existent ANPR 'data use' signage - breach of ICO rules and the BPA Code of Practice.
(f) It is believed the signage was not lit and any terms were not transparent or legible; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver and contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 in requiring a huge inflated sum as 'compensation' from by an authorised party using the premises as intended.
(g) No promise was made by the driver that could constitute consideration because there was no offer neither known nor accepted. No consideration flowed from the Claimant.
(h) The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.
(i) BPA CoP breaches - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
(j) the signs were not compliant in terms of the font size, lighting or positioning.
(k) The sum pursued exceeds £100 and much over with falsely added legal costs.
(l) There is / was no compliant landowner contract.

7. No standing - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
It is believed Civil Enforcement do not hold a legitimate contract at this car park. As an agent, the Claimant has no legal right to bring such a claim in their name which should be in the name of the landowner.

8. The Beavis case confirmed the fact that, if it is a matter of trespass (not breach of any contract), a parking firm has no standing as a non-landowner to pursue even nominal damages.

9. The charge is an unenforceable penalty based upon a lack of commercial justification. The Beavis case confirmed that the penalty rule is certainly engaged in any case of a private parking charge and was only disengaged due to the unique circumstances of that case, which do not resemble this claim.

The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter and asks the Court to note that the Claimant has:

(a) failed to disclose any cause of action in the incorrectly filed Claim Form issued on 09 June 2017

(b) Sent a template, well-known to be generic cut and paste 'Particulars' of claim relying on irrelevant case law (Beavis) which ignores the fact that this Claimant cannot hold registered keepers liable in law, due to their own choice of non-POFA documentation.

The vague Particulars of Claim disclose no clear cause of action. The court is invited to strike out the claim of its own volition as having no merit and no reasonable prospects of success for the claimant.

I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and accurate to the defence of this claim.

Signed - Me
Date - Today

Hi There all ,I have completed the above not verbatim and seems much much relevant for my defence ,Please feel free to criticise.
Reading over and re wording alongside copies of my passport and flight bookings, I do not think CEL have got a chance of claiming that someone enters into there fake contract without merely being present in the land.

s1290

Also when emailing this over to CCBC + CEL should I attach the copies of my passport stamp and flight tickets to the court ?

Redx

not for the initial defence , no

the evidence stage comes in a few months , a few weeks before the actual court date

readt the various stages in post #2 of the NEWBIES sticky thread, where BARGEPOLE explains them

s1290

Thank you,that is if it reaches court stage which CEL apparently never does.I have read the NEWBIES Thread and various info and current defences, does the above defence seem complete for me to send off ?

Coupon-mad

Yep, looks good enough to kill it!

s1290

Hi there coupon mad,


last question before I send correct me if I am wrong,


I will send this off to both CCBC and CEL via E-mail as a PDF attachment and another in the post for CCBC (just incase) - Do I need to sign and scan or can I electronically sign ?


Also once sent do I need to fill out the online MCOL defense section or just forget that bit ?

Coupon-mad

Personally I would sign & date a hard copy, then scan that.

Once sent by email to the CCBC, you do not need to update MCOL.

Lamilad

and another in the post for CCBC (just incase)

Don't waste money on a stamp. Just ring the court to confirm they've received your email